The court issued notices to respondents to file replies within two weeks. Others against whom the case has been filed include chairman, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), chairman, Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India (ICICI), Finance secretary, Chief executive of the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) and former member (Finance), Department of Telecom (DoT) R C Rastogi.

The petition filed by lawyer B L Wadhera alleged that DoT while alloting licences to cellular operators failed to devise a "basic standard" for charging licence fee resulting in a net loss of about Rs 1,100 crore to the department.

The loss due to under projection of the service was to the tune of Rs 354 crore,followed by non-realisation of revised fee on calls (Rs 685 crore), on account of interest (Rs 50.76 crore) and due to non-recovery of liquidated damages (Rs 33 crore).

It has been alleged that DoT failed to protect the public interest by not incorporating suitable provisions in the licence agreement with cellular operators for charging higher licence fee, in case of the demand for mobile telephone service turning out to be more than the projections for the first three years.

"The cellular operators consequently were allowed undue benefit of Rs 483 crore in the process by DoT's not revising the call charges from Rs 1.10 to Rs 1.40 per call," the petition said.

The minimum basic standard for licence fee was fixed by the former minister and Rastogi after a mutual discussions "on the basis of advice given by one of the bidders to Sukh Ram on July 16, 1992," the petition alleged. The papers relating to process of the "assumed estimated demands" for mobile phones by each operator in the four metros, madeavailable to the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) did not contain either the basis or the means through which Rastogi obtained the figure of likely demand, the petition claimed.

Sukh Ram and Rastogi's decision to fix lump-sum licence fee of Rs 5,000 per subscriber for first three years cost the DoT very heavily as the number of subscribers increased considerablly during this period than the estimated projection, the petition said.

It said that actual number of subscribers in Mumbai during 1994-95 alone was 2.5 times more than the projected figures, in Delhi it was 5.36 time more, and two and 1.2 time more in Chennai and Calcutta respectively.

The growth of subscribers shot up further 4.16 times during 1995-96 in Mumbai followed by Delhi (9.31), Chennai (3.16) and Calcutta (2.27).Increase in their numbers continued for the third year, covered under the projected estimate, the petition said.